Northern Ireland: Departmental Underspend

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 24 February (WA 220) concerning underspending by Northern Ireland departments, whether any funding allocated to Northern Ireland departments in each financial year since 2000 was surrendered to central government as unspent.

Baroness Amos: Of the actual underspend by Northern Ireland departments since 2000, the only amounts surrendered to the Treasury as unspent were in respect of certain ring-fenced EU allocations where funding ceased in 2001–02. In these cases unspent resources totalling £13.5 million were returned, as they were not needed for the purposes originally allocated, and could not be allocated to other areas.
	Since 2002–03, no money has been returned to HM Treasury as a consequence of departmental underspending and it is not anticipated that any will be returned in 2004–05.

Northern Ireland: Political Advisers

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 27 January (WA 176) concerning the document Ministerial Decision-Making: Interim Procedures, whether the practice of not consulting advisers about decisions for cross-border bodies means that there is no Unionist input; and, if so, whether this is consistent with the spirit of the Belfast agreement of 1998.

Baroness Amos: We do not agree that the involvement or otherwise of political advisers in decisions relating to cross-border bodies means that there is no unionist input.

Northern Ireland: Child Protection

Baroness Blood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether each of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland has a child protection policy and a designated officer for child protection; and whether each council provides child protection training for key staff.

Baroness Amos: The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in making the appointment of the director of marketing and communications for Waterways Ireland, they took account of paragraph 4 of the financial memorandum annexe entitled "Staffing Principles of North South Implementation Bodies".

Baroness Amos: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer of 12 October 2004 (WA 50).
	I am advised by the chief executive at Waterways Ireland that account was taken of paragraph 4 of the financial memorandum annexe, "Staffing Principles of North South Bodies", when making this appointment in that as the appointee was transferred to the body the provisions of paragraph 4 did not apply.

Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, since 1 January 2004, there have been any investigations into the state of organisation and morale of Waterways Ireland; if so, when; and by whom such investigations were carried out; and what was the broad outcome of each such investigation.

Baroness Amos: I am advised by the chief executive at Waterways Ireland that the body has not conducted any investigation into the state of organisation and morale since 1 January 2004.

Africa: Aid

Lord Owen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which base year is being taken for their pledge to double aid to Africa by 2010; and whether this pledge is dependent on the international finance facility initiative.

Baroness Amos: The Commission for Africa calls for aid to be doubled over the next three to five years from the base year of 2004. The UK is on track to achieve that even without the international finance facility (IFF) being in place.
	However, the IFF is critical to accelerate growth in overall aid flows from donor countries.

Croatia: EU Membership

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received from the German Government regarding the starting of talks with Croatia about European Union membership.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Government have been in continued close contact with the German Government on whether Croatia has met conditions for opening European Union accession negotiations. On 16 March 2005, European Union Foreign Ministers concluded that these conditions had not been met in the absence of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

China: EU Arms Sales Embargo

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the effect on United Kingdom Armed Forces of the restriction of supply of United States weapons technology should the European Union embargo on arms sales to China be lifted.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We are aware of concerns about possible indirect consequences for the UK if action were taken in the US in response to a lifting of the European Union China arms embargo. We do not consider that such action would be justified. We continue to work with the US to achieve a mutually satisfactory understanding. In particular, we are setting out how the UK's own rigorous licensing regime and the enhanced EU code of conduct plus a new toolbox of measures should ensure there is no qualitative or quantitative increase in EU arms exports to China.

Zimbabwe

Lord Steinberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a monitoring role in the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The European Union, along with the US and the Commonwealth, has not been invited to send a delegation to observe the Zimbabwean election on 31 March. The government of Zimbabwe have said they will not accept monitors from "hostile" countries.
	None the less, some of our diplomats in Harare are being allowed to observe polling. They are co-operating with diplomats from the European Union and some other embassies to ensure we cover as much of the elections as we can.

Zimbabwe

Lord Steinberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to make any changes to their policy towards Zimbabwe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Our policy on Zimbabwe is firm and unequivocal. We deplore the policies of Mugabe and his regime, and will continue, directly and with the international community, to press for a return to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Cyprus

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In light of the statement by the Greek Cypriot leader, Tassos Papadopoulos, in the newspaper Alithia, that, "our efforts to date have been to prevent a settlement. We will work to refrain from negotiations until 3 October and we will search for a Cyprus settlement in due time and within the framework of EU law", how they intend to alter their strategy to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The government of the Republic of Cyprus denies that President Papadopoulos made these comments.
	There is no change in our policy towards Cyprus, which is to promote a just, viable and lasting Cyprus settlement acceptable to all the parties. In the absence of actual settlement negotiations, the Government are doing all they can to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, which will help to prepare the ground for a settlement by making it easier to implement. Such an approach is in line with last year's agreement by European Union Foreign Ministers on 26 April and the subsequent report by the United Nations Secretary-General on his mission of good offices in Cyprus.

Nepal: Human Rights

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they have taken through the United Nations, including the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights, to propose or adopt resolutions to condemn the alleged suspension of human rights and democracy in Nepal since 1 February; and what were the results.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We are deeply troubled by all abuses carried out against the ordinary people of Nepal, both by the state and by the Maoists. We remain committed to improving Nepal's human rights record through continuing to fund human rights organisations and capacity building for the Nepalese National Human Rights Commission through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and through political and diplomatic instruments, such as the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. Last year the UK was closely involved in the 60th session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights (CHR60) and contributed significantly to the chairman's statement. We remain equally engaged this year in the new political context following the King's takeover of power on 1 February and his suspension of fundamental rights. We are currently working with our international partners to find the best way to take this forward at CHR 61.

Nepal: Human Rights

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What support they are giving, or intend to give, to Nepalese human rights agencies and aid organisations in India and the United Kingdom campaigning for the restoration of constitutional democracy in Nepal.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We are not funding or intending to fund any human rights organisations in India or the UK campaigning for the restoration of constitutional democracy in Nepal. However, we remain deeply troubled by the human rights situation in Nepal and will continue to fund a number of human rights organisations operating inside Nepal. We will also continue to support the National Human Rights Commission, provided it remains independent and able to carry out its duties free from interference. We will also continue to press for the immediate restitution of multi-party democracy and democratic processes in Nepal.

EU Constitutional Treaty

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether under the proposed constitution for Europe, if one-third of national parliaments find that a proposal from the European Commission does not respect the principle of subsidiarity, that proposal falls.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Article 7 of Protocol 2 of the European Union Constitutional Treaty sets out that "where reasoned opinions on a draft European legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one-third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments . . . the draft must be reviewed". The institution or states proposing the measure must then decide whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft and give reasons for their decision. In the Government's view, it would in practice be very difficult to maintain a proposal without amending it to address the concerns raised.

European Parliament: Mr Ashley Mote

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they submitted their request to the President of the European Parliament that the alleged parliamentary immunity of Mr Ashley Mote MEP be lifted, as announced in the European Parliament on 23 February.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Union submitted an application on February 2005 from the Attorney-General to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Josep Borrell, asking the European Parliament to confirm that there is no bar to the prosecution and that Mr Mote was not immune to prosecution by virtue of his status as a Member of the European Parliament.

Pakistan and India: US Arms Sales

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made about current and proposed arms sales by the United States to both Pakistan and India.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have made no representations to any country regarding US arms sales to India and Pakistan. Such sales are regulated through the US Government's Directorate of Defense Controls. The US Government are committed to the maintenance of stability in the region.

Hong Kong: Indian Nationality

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, having regard to paragraph II(2) of the press release of the Consulate-General of India in Hong Kong dated 20 March 1998 (in response to clarifications sought by the British High Commission in New Delhi), a person born in Hong Kong before 30 June 1978 who acquired Indian citizenship by descent at birth and failed to exercise his option for Indian citizenship by formally renouncing his British Dependent Territories citizenship before his 19th birthday would automatically cease to be a citizen of India.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As the noble Lord will be aware, we are seeking clarification from the government of India on various issues concerning the interpretation of that country's nationality law.
	I will write to the noble Lord when those inquiries have been completed.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to ensure that the May 2005 review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty balances obligations on the existing nuclear powers, including the United States, India, Pakistan and Israel, with those of prospective nuclear powers.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Government are strongly committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The treaty strikes a balance between non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The obligations taken on by nations becoming a state party to the treaty apply equally to the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states. The UK delegation to the review conference will work to strengthen all three pillars of the treaty. The delegation will stress the need for a stronger and more effective counter-proliferation regime. We will emphasise the importance of compliance with the treaty and will promote the adoption of safeguards. We will emphasise too the UK's good record on nuclear disarmament, and will produce a final report of the studies that we have conducted on the verification of nuclear disarmament.
	The UK supports universalisation of the treaty. However, the non-signatories to the treaty, India, Pakistan and Israel, have no obligations to fulfil in respect to it, and the review conference is not in a position to put obligations upon them.

Polygraph Tests

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what circumstances, and for what purposes, they consider that polygraph tests may appropriately be carried out by the police, the Probation Service or other official bodies; and what validity is to be attributed to the results of such tests.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The National Probation Service is conducting a limited pilot of polygraph testing with sex offenders who are subject to statutory supervision and attending an accredited sex offender treatment programme. The purpose of the pilot is to assess whether the polygraph examination provides useful information for offender managers to assess risk and adherence to conditions of supervision by the offender. Taken together with other sources of information the use of the polygraph is intended to assist in better targeting of resources and therefore increase protection to the public. It is too early to comment on the validity of the results as the pilot is continuing. Results are expected in summer 2006.
	Polygraphy may also be used as a means of improving the development and implementation of assessment and treatment for patients/prisoners in dangerous and severe personality disordered (DSPD) sites. An evaluation will be commissioned in 2005 to consider this proposed use of the polygraph.
	The police service is not currently considering the use of polygraphy.

Ministerial Privileges: Mr David Blunkett

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what occasions since 15 December 2004, and for what purposes, visits were undertaken by Mr. David Blunkett for which a government car was used.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are a number of former Ministers and Prime Ministers who continue to receive special security requirements after leaving office. It has been agreed that David Blunkett can continue to have the use of his car while his security arrangements are reviewed, and appropriate measures can be put in place. For reasons of security, it would not be appropriate to provide the detailed information requested about the use of the car.

Anti-terrorism: Stop-and-search Powers

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is compatible with the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) and the proposed Equality Bill for counter-terrorist and other police officers to use their powers of stop, search and arrest on the basis of generalisations or assumptions about Muslims and terrorism.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Police can arrest an individual under the Terrorism Act only if they reasonably suspect that individual to be a terrorist. Arrests are not made on the basis off any generalisations or assumptions, but are frequently the result of months of intensive intelligence gathering and surveillance.
	Statistics published in the report under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 do not support allegations that the terrorism stop-and-search powers are used to target particular communities. Although statistics relating to an individual's faith are not collected, the proportion of Asians stopped and searched under these powers fell in 2003–04. It is important to remember that use of the powers can only be authorised in places and at times where they are necessary for the prevention of terrorism, and that these authorisations are subject to scrutiny by the Secretary of State.
	The Home Office recently published a draft manual on stop and search, which stated that "officers must not discriminate against black and minority ethnic communities" when exercising anti-terrorist stop and search powers. This echoes the instructions on these powers given by the police codes of practice.

Home Office: Telephone Numbers

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Home Office, when it moved offices, did not arrange for calls to its old telephone numbers to be diverted to its new ones.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The diversion of old telephone numbers was carefully considered when it became clear that it would not be possible to transfer these existing numbers to the new Home Office headquarters at 2 Marsham Street. The move or diversion of old numbers to the new location could not be achieved at reasonable cost and would not have enabled the implementation of a single range of telephone numbers for the Home Office London estate.
	To support the number change, staff were advised to let their contacts know their new telephone numbers in advance and, where possible, to leave voicemail messages so that callers would hear a message giving the appropriate new telephone number. These two steps were felt to be a better way of getting new numbers known. Simple call diversion would not inform callers of the change and would lead to loss of contact when, inevitably, support for the old numbers ceased.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill: Religious Hatred

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is meant by legitimate as distinct from illegitimate discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents in paragraph 519 of the Explanatory Notes on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill (HL Bill 24–EN).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Explanatory Notes emphasise the high threshold for the offence and that hatred is a strong term. As such this does not encompass material that merely stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence.
	The Government consider that all words and conduct which are intended or likely to stir up hatred against individuals on racial or religious grounds are illegitimate and should be a criminal offence.

Iraq: Cost of Military Intervention

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total cost to the United Kingdom of the military engagement in Iraq.

Lord Bach: The costs of operations are calculated on a net additional basis and audited figures are published each year in the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts. Costs of operations in Iraq for financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 were:
	
		
			  £ million 
			 2002-03 847 
			 2003-04 1,311 
		
	
	Estimated costs for 2004–05 of £975 million were included in spring supplementary estimates published in February. Final figures will be published in the MoD's annual report and accounts for 2004–05 following necessary stock-take activity and audit by the National Audit Office.

Defence: Responses to Debate

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Lord Bach's commitment to write to Members in response to questions not answered during the defence debate on 17 January (Official Report, col. 625), whether the Minister will write to all speakers who raised questions in the debate; and whether copies will be sent to all those who spoke in the debate.

Lord Bach: I have responded to the noble Lord himself (with copies to Lord Boyce, Lord Guthrie, and Lord Brammall), as well as Earl Attlee, Lord Craig of Radley, Lord Luke, and Lord Garden on the points that they raised during the debate on developments in defence in the House of Lords on 17 January 2005.
	Copies of these letters have been placed in the Library of the House. The letters address the majority of the issues that were raised by Peers during the debate, and that I was unable to address fully in my closing speech.

Army: Infantry Units

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide in detail the timings of the implementation of the future infantry structure.

Lord Bach: As previously announced, structural changes envisaged under the future infantry structure are due to be implemented by the end of 2008. The detailed implementation arrangements are still being worked through.

Iraq: Protection of Service Personnel

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What precautions they intend to take to protect British service personnel from missile attacks during airborne transit movements in Iraqi war zones.

Lord Bach: In order to minimise the risk to our forces, the United Kingdom military aircraft flying over Iraq use both defensive systems and tactical procedures. Tactical operating procedures are kept under continuous review in the light of the assessed threat. I cannot comment on the detail of these measures for reasons of operational security.

HM Customs and Excise: Heavy Goods Vehicles

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the speech by the Lord Luke on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 83), whether the suggestion that the Government's lorry road user charging scheme would require 1,000 new Civil Service positions is accurate; and, if not, what is the best estimate to the nearest 250 positions; and
	Further to the speech by the Lord Luke on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 83), whether it would cost £2 billion to fit all 400,000 trucks with satellite transponders; and, if not, what is an approximate figure; and
	Further to the answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 85–92), what "substantial amount of work" has been completed on finding a system for the Government's plan; and whether they have a preferred method of technology; and
	Further to the answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 85–92) on HM Customs and Excise: heavy goods vehicles, whether their plan is simply to measure distance; or whether they will be tracking location as well.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Government have outlined in this year's Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (HC 372 para. 7.52), they are progressing their plans for a lorry road user charge (LRUC), accompanied by offsetting tax cuts, due to be phased in from 2007–08.
	Since announcing plans for LRUC in the 2001 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 5318), the Government have completed an initial public consultation and worked closely with the haulage industry in developing its requirements. In particular the Government have taken into account developments in other countries in Europe, including Austria, Germany and Switzerland. It has been supported by advisers and industry experts in road-charging initiatives around the world. The Government have published regular progress reports, in April 2002, April 2003 and March 2004, setting out, in detail, how plans are being developed, as well as a procurement prospectus in May 2004 and a discussion paper in January 2005. Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House, and from the HM Customs and Excise website.
	The LRUC programme is now well into its procurement phase, and Customs have now started detailed discussions about their requirements with short listed bidders. In line with good practice guidance for government procurement projects, these requirements do not specify particular technologies, which will be selected from the best value-for-money solutions offered by bidders. The requirement for distance-measuring equipment does not include location tracking.
	Progress report three set out the requirement for public sector resources and a range of operational activities, including assurance, enforcement, communications and marketing, which Customs would incorporate with their other operational responsibilities or within an LRUC management authority. Customs are continuing to work on estimates for the costs and resource requirements for LRUC. Much will also depend on the technical solutions proposed by bidders, which will only become clear following commercial negotiations. Final decisions have yet to be taken. To speculate at this stage in the procurement would prejudice the Government's commercial interests in this process.

HM Customs and Excise: Heavy Goods Vehicles

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the speech by the Lord Luke on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 83), whether the fuel would have to be a different colour to prevent rebated fuel from finding its way into private cars; and
	Further to the speech by the Lord Luke on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 83), whether the lorry road user charging scheme will be cost or revenue neutral; and, if so, for how long; and
	Further to the answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 85–92), whether both United Kingdom and European continental hauliers are eligible for the fuel rebate under the lorry road user charging scheme; and how this plan is levelling the playing field for United Kingdom hauliers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: LRUC will apply to all lorry operators regardless of their nationality and therefore enable the Government to charge foreign lorry operators using UK roads for the first time. It will be offset by a reduction in fuel duty, available on duty-paid fuel purchased in the UK and used in any lorry that falls within the scope of LRUC. In this way, lorries of all nationalities driving in the UK will pay their fair share in LRUC charges.
	The Government have stated that the total tax paid by the UK industry will not rise as a result of introducing LRUC and its offsetting tax cut. As was made clear in response to the noble Earl on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 88), when LRUC is in place, the Government will also be able, for the first time, to take decisions about taxation levels which affect the haulage industry separately from the decisions they take about general motoring taxes, on a Budget-by-Budget basis.
	Two methods of delivering the fuel duty reduction have been identified: a new chemically marked fuel that would be sold at a discounted rate to haulage operators, or a repayment scheme whereby operators declare how much fuel they have used in each chargeable vehicle. In progress report three, following consultation with the oils and haulage industries, the Government identified a repayment scheme as the lead option. Provided that adequate fraud mitigation measures can be put in place, there will be no need for the fuel to be a different colour.

HM Customs and Excise: Heavy Goods Vehicles

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the speech by the Lord Luke on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 83), whether the anti-fuel tax evasion idea, raised during the debate on the Unstarred Question, is compliant with European Union law; and
	Whether there is enough refuelling capacity in south-east England to support the proposal raised in the debate on the Unstarred Question on 1 March; and
	What additional taxation revenue would be raised by implementing the anti-fuel tax evasion proposal, which was debated in Grand Committee on 1 March.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As was made clear to the noble Earl in the Government's response to him on 1 March (Official Report, col. GC 89), his idea would probably not be compliant with EU law. It involves a requirement that lorry operators buy goods (in this case fuel) in a particular member state. It seems likely that this would be regarded as having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, creating practical as well as economic obstacles to the free movement of goods or services, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.
	The Government believe that, in a competitive market, the fuel distribution and refuelling infrastructure would adapt to meet any potential increase in the demand for fuel in the south-east of England. However, this proposal would have implications for the commercial viability of fuel retailers in other parts of the country.
	The Government have estimated that the total amount of revenue (including both excise duty and VAT) lost in Great Britain to cross-border shopping of diesel fuel by both UK-based and overseas hauliers in 2002 was £300 million. No estimate has been made for later years. Details are published in Measuring and Tackling Indirect Tax Losses (HM Customs & Excise, December 2003), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. No assessment has been made of the impact of the noble Earl's proposal.

Capital Gains Tax

Lord Steinberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to introduce a capital gains tax on first homes.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Chapter 5, paragraph 114, of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2005 states:
	"Gains arising on disposal of a principal private residence will continue to be exempt from capital gains tax."

European Anti-Fraud Office

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the current powers of the Director General of the Anti-fraud Office of the European Union, with reference to treaties in force, legislative instruments and powers related thereto; and to what extent these provisions provide powers for its officers, or those acting on its behalf, to take proceedings in any European Union or member state court against any person or body on an indictment of fraud, or having power to compel any agency of a member state to do so.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was set up by Regulation 1073/99 (which was adopted under Article 280 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community) and Regulation 1074/99 (which is the corresponding instrument adopted under Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty). The regulations both provide expressly (Article 2) that investigations by OLAF shall not affect the powers of the member states to bring criminal proceedings. Reports drawn up, following an investigation by OLAF in one or more member states, are sent to the competent authorities of the member state(s) in question. The director of the office is also required to forward to the judicial authorities of the member state(s) concerned the information obtained by the office during investigations into matters liable to result in criminal proceedings. In the United Kingdom, the relevant UK authorities would determine whether an offence appeared to have been committed contrary to UK criminal law and decide whether to prosecute accordingly. The decision whether or not to take proceedings is purely a matter for the member state concerned.

Property Transactions

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what estimates of the number of residential property purchases and their average price, the indexed projections in line 12 of Table 1.2 in Budget 2005 (HC372) are based for (a) 2005–06; (b) 2006–07; and (c) 2007–08.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Budget estimates were based on projecting forward data on individual property transactions in line with Treasury assumptions for growth in prices and volumes.

Energy Saving Trust and Carbon Trust

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any overlap between the work of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust; and what is the total annual cost to public funds of the two organisations.

Lord Whitty: The Energy Saving Trust (EST) was established by the Government in 1992, after the Rio Earth Summit. It is a private, non-profit organisation grant-funded by Defra to support its household energy efficiency activities. These activities are aimed at increasing demand for energy efficiency through raising awareness, providing advice and support for action. They also support the supply of energy efficiency products and services to meet this demand by developing partnerships, stimulating innovation, supporting training and providing accreditation.
	The Carbon Trust (CT) was launched in April 2001, as part of the climate change levy package, to take the lead in improving business and public sector energy efficiency and support the development of a low carbon economy in the UK. The CT is also a private non-profit organisation, receiving grant funding from Defra to support its activities.
	The EST currently receives grant funding from Defra of about £25 million per annum for its energy efficiency work. CT currently receives grant funding from Defra of about £44 million per annum. Both trusts also have a range of other financial arrangements with devolved administrations and other government departments.
	The trusts' remits and activities do not overlap. The CT has a focus towards industry and innovation, while the EST focuses on household energy use. These sectors have different needs and require different approaches. The trusts work closely and effectively together on some areas where they have shared or interacting interests; for example in the public sector and at different stages of the market transformation and innovation process.

Salmon Fishing

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Environment Agency has completed its review on improvements to fisheries and fishing for salmon since the catch and release system was introduced in 1999.

Lord Whitty: An interim review was undertaken by the Environment Agency during 2003-04, using data collated during the period up to and including 2002. The review was completed in April 2003 and concluded that no change was warranted to the bylaws introduced in 1999, but that there was a case for further examining the need for additional controls on exploitation of salmon in a number of rivers.
	In 2004 the Environment Agency reported on its more recent review of salmon stock conservation. This highlighted that salmon stocks are in a depleted condition in the majority of rivers in England and Wales. It recorded that further controls on exploitation are required to protect stocks under particular pressure, although such controls, on their own, will not resolve the problem.
	The England and Wales spring salmon bylaws expire in April 2009. The Environment Agency will therefore carry out a full review in 2008. This will include the status of stocks of spring salmon and the levels of control and any other measures required.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To whom traffic commissioners are accountable in connection with disciplinary action taken against them.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport under the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and are required to act under the general directions of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1981 Act provides that a traffic commissioner may be removed from office by the Secretary of State for Transport on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any action can be taken against a transport manager at a public inquiry run by a traffic commissioner where the transport manager had not been formally called under paragraphs 15(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

Lord Davies of Oldham: A traffic commissioner cannot make a finding that a transport manager is not of good repute or is not professionally competent unless all the procedures set out in paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 have been followed.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What rules govern who can appear at an inquiry run by a traffic commissioner; what powers traffic commissioners have to limit those who can appear; and whether they have to provide reasons for doing so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The rules governing the conduct of public inquiries are set out in Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995. Paragraph 3 thereof sets out who can appear before inquiries.

Traffic Commissioners

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which primary and secondary legislative provisions allow traffic commissioners to use discretionary powers:
	(a) to produce and implement "guidelines" restricting United Kingdom transport managers to a maximum client base of five small vehicle operators; and
	(b) to increase the financial standing requirement for United Kingdom operators of first category vehicles to £6,200 when European Union standards dictate a fifth of that at £1,125 pro rata in euros.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There are no guidelines restricting transport managers to a maximum client base of five small vehicle operators. The legislation requires that a transport manager must have "continuous and effective responsibility for the management of the transport operations of the business". There is nothing to prevent a person acting as transport manager for more than one operator but the traffic commissioner will need to be satisfied that in each case the manager is able to exercise "continuous and effective responsibility".
	The financial standing requirement for holders of standard national and international goods operator licences is prescribed by European Directive 96/26/EC (as amended). The directive specifies an amount of €9,000 for one vehicle and €5,000 for each additional vehicle. For member states which have not adopted the euro, provision is made for these limits to be revalued into national currencies at five-yearly intervals. The current sterling equivalents based on the rate of exchange on 1 October 2004 are £6,200 and £3,400 respectively.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What research has been undertaken into what causes the problems of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to start.

Baroness Andrews: There is currently no consensus on the causes of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Research indicates that genetics plays a part, and this is currently being investigated by the international multi-centre ADHD gene project at the Institute of Psychiatry.